Within the judicial and criminal justice systems, restorative justice is seen as a forward moving process in regards to the way in which the sentencing of offenders is handled (Britto & Reimund, 2013). Restorative justice works to focus on the needs of both the victim and the offender but incorporates the community as well as those who support both the victim and offender (Britto & Reimund, 2013). The approach of restorative justice in not simply a means by which society responds to and reduces crime but instead, provides an equivalently valuable social response to crime (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). Furthermore, the restorative approach places emphasis on the personal and relational harms which were caused by the crime while creating space for dialogue concerning the actual damage, whether directly or
The justice system is constant work in progress as the system must change and evolve to meet the needs, demands and requirements of the times we live in. The justice system and its statutes sometimes struggle to keep up with the ever-changing world; thus making them lag behind. As stated, one of the core functions of the justice system is to provide intervention programs for those individuals who are deemed to be at risk. Intervention programs do exist but still the justice system is overburden with many criminal cases. The inability of justice programs to work as they are intended to is seen as one of the significant problems facing the justice system. Welsh and Harris (2013) seeks to explain the inability of the justice programs to not work in stating, “The problem is that many criminal justice interventions fall short of their goals because of poor planning, poor implementation, and poor evaluation. It is fair to say we have not yet discovered “what works” to reduce crime.” From this, it is clear that the development of interventions is not the issue and not the cause for them to not succeed in their mandates but the problem is within their planning.
There are several old ways of solving crime according to many sources, but restorative justice is a type of rehabilitation process which focuses on repairing, and as the word suggest brings restoration. It rebuilds the lives of individuals who are involve in crime. While crime damages a person life, restorative justice repairs it (Office for Victims of Crime, 2000; Morris and Maxwell, 2001). There are three main stakeholders in a restorative justice process, these are the victims, the offender, and the community, therefore when crime is committed restorative justice sees it as an office against people and not against the state. I believe that in order for restorative justice process to be successful all three parties involve, citizens, victims,
Diversion programs have become a prevalent form of justice in the Criminal Justice System. Diversion can be two things; diversion from jail or diversion from the legal system completely. Diversionary programs have been developed in the Criminal Justice System throughout its many levels for a multitude of reasons. Often, they are spurred on by practical concerns including, but not limited to, over-crowded prisons, the high cost of the criminal process, and as an alternative approach to dealing with those suffering from mental illnesses. Diversion may occur both before and after a trial and are aimed at avoiding the trial process (pre-trial) and incarceration (post-trial). an attempt tas pushback against over-criminalization. Despite this reason,
Response: Criminal Justice System Branches and Their Importance. The three branches of the criminal justice system are Law enforcement, Court system, and Corrections. Each branch play an important role in our society. The importance of the law enforcement is huge and it’s the first step of our criminal justice system.
Batley (2005) stated that restorative justice is about restoring, healing and re- integrating victims, offenders, as well as the society and also preventing further harm. In this assignment, I will be discussing approaches to restorative justice and illustrating their advantages and disadvantages to offending. I will also provide the applications of these five approaches of restorative justice which are retributive approach, utilitarian deterrence approach, rehabilitation approach, restitution approach and restorative approach in the given case study. I will then explain my preferred approach to justice through identifying a personal belief or value that underpins my choice.
Some benefits reduce crime victims’ post-traumatic stress systems and it reduces crime victims’ desire for violent rage against their offenders. It also reduces repeat offending for some offenders although not all. Circle Justice has many benefits but It also has lots of weaknesses such as how its inability to prevent potential for uneven or discriminating outcomes for sentencing and restitution, it encourages perpetrators of crimes to restore the harm they created. In US Criminal
This type of justice system is designed very differently when compared with the retributive justice system. The restorative justice system endeavours to bring the victim and the offender together and allow them to speak with each other in the hopes to support the healing process. It will enable the victims to express themselves to the offender and lets the offender apologize and express their feelings to the victim. The restorative justice system often offers the victims of crime closure. The system encourages both parties to reveal themselves to each other and develop a solution for the future to satisfy both parties involved.
B. Restorative Justice There is some theoretical ambiguity in the meaning of Restorative Justice in spite of the many definitions and studies done on the subject. Restorative Justice has been defined as “an ethos with practical goals, among which to restore harm by including affected parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue.” It is primarily concerned with the reinstatement of victims to life before the crime, restoration of the Offender to a well behaved and lawful life, restoration of the injury caused to the community and the creation of a better society in the present and the future. Restorative Justice is not easily defined because it covers a wide range of practices introduced at different stages of the criminal process, including diversion from prosecution, actions analogous with court decisions and meetings between victims and offenders at any stage of the criminal process. One widely-accepted definition of restorative justice was put forward by Tony Marshall which was also accepted by the United Nations Working Party on Restorative Justice, defined restorative justice as; “a process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of an offence and its implications for the future.”
Traditionally, crime has been viewed as a violation against the state. Still too little attention is given to the fact that criminal acts are also violations of the victims and the communities. Punishing and correcting offenders’ criminal behaviors should not only be conducted using the concepts of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence, it should also be designed to repair the damages done to the victims and the communities. Many benefits are associated with shifting to the restorative justice model, for the victim, the offender, and the community. Restorative justice benefits the victims by giving them a voice regarding the accountability of the offender.
Correctional programs are used to make this adjustment do that once a criminal is released back into society, they will not choose the same means to reduce the outside strain caused by certain factors outside their control. I would argue that restorative justice is a facet of rehabilitation. Restorative Justice focuses on alleviating the harm that crime caused to society, the criminal, and the victim. The analogy given in class to explain restorative justice was also recapped in the book. Imagine Lady Justice, scales tilted on one side.
Research Evidence Supporting empirical evidence is overwhelming for the restorative justice process and its use with young offenders in the juvenile justice system and because of this, focus will be placed on adult offender studies. The Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking at the University of Minnesota conducted an independent review of multiple meta-analyses of restorative justice programs. In these studies, victims participated on average in about 50% of the cases but rates as high as 90% were reported. The willingness to participate was motivated by the need to help the offender change their life choices, understand the justification of the crime, and to share their pain with the offender (Umbreit, Vos, & Coates, 2006, p. 2).
The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Proponents of restorative justice contend that it is more likely than retributive justice to reduce the incidence of crime because of its central concern for the safety of victims. The studies have demonstrated that restorative justice can have a reductive effect in certain cases and can change the behaviour of offenders. On the whole, however, there is more evidence that restorative justice is effective in reducing either the frequency or severity of reoffending for juveniles than in the case of adult offenders. Conclusion and
4 Criticism and Challenges The first point of criticism against victim participation in restorative justice processes arises from scepticism about an apology to the victim as a way of dealing with criminal matters. The perception sometimes exists as to it simply being a way to get away with the crime.106 Members of the public should thus be educated to understand that restorative justice is more than a mere saying sorry, but in the context of victim offender mediation or family group conferences it rather affords the victim the opportunity to confront the child offender with the real and human cost of his or her criminal actions. Another concern deals with the possible secondary victimisation of the victim in the case where the offender pretends